The "Jewish State"

[Sisyphus]

This is purely speculative, but perhaps there is a moral to be found somewhere. I'm not committing to one, anyway. It occurs to me that if Israel had been founded not as a "Jewish state" but as a purely secular state that happened to give refuge to Jews (and anyone else, I guess), then everything since then probably would have happened very differently. (Yes, I know there are lots of non-Jewish Israeli citizens, but it was founded as a Jewish state, presents itself as such, has a Star of David on the flag, and furthermore, everyone knows it is, so shush.)

 

Things that would be different:

 

General Middle Eastern hatred towards Israel: It seems like it would be harder to attack a state that happened to have a large population of Jews, rather than a "Jewish state," which is perceived as a foreign invasion. Maybe a few wars could have been prevented. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Palestinian/Israeli conflict: I don't think Palestinians would be so eager for independence. Living in a state shared by people of different religions and ethnicities is one thing. Living in a state based around a religion that is not your own is another. The latter tends to feel like an oppressive occupation, even if it really isn't.

 

United States foreign policy: As a secular, democratic state, it would be easy to justify supporting, and it would be worthy of said support. However, without it being a "Jewish state," the support could be more rational. There wouldn't be evangelicals supporting it unconditionally as a means to bring about the apocolypse. There also wouldn't be Jews who have no connection to Israel beyond being Jewish supporting it unconditionally and overly emotionally merely because they are Jewish. This would in turn breed less resentment among non-Jews and non-Israelis in the Middle East for that support, since it wouldn't seem like helping the other side in a holy war, which, frankly, is an understandable impression given the two aforementioned groups.

 

I guess if I have a point it's that identifying national identities with race or religion is generally a bad idea, especially if the populace of that nation is far from uniform. But really I was just hoping for some interesting discussion. Thoughts, comments, questions, insults, or wild accusations are all welcome.

[ecoli]

Well, if there has been something close to a successful theocratic democracy, then Israel is it. You do talk about some important issues that even Israeli's debate amoungst themselves.

 

Some, more secular Jews, for example, resent laws that give tax breaks to the orthadox or releives them of military duty. Laws that automatically grant civilian status to any Jewish immigrant is another.

 

I think one of the reason why Israel has been a succesful democracy (aside from US financial support) is that, unlike other Muslim nations in the middle east, it's government is still separated very much from religion. The ability to run for office or to vote is not restricted based about religion (or anything else).

 

The goal of the Zionist movement was to set up a safe haven for Jews in the wake of the holocaust. So even if Judiasm wasn't established as the official religion of the nation, it's Muslim neighbors would still see it that way, and their reaction wouldn't have been any different. It may have been easier now, but I'm really not sure about that.

[Severian]

The ability to run for office or to vote is not restricted based about religion (or anything else).

 

That is not really true. It is true that there is no restriction within the Israeli population, but Israel restricts who is allowed to call themselves Israeli very much along racial/religious lines, and in order to vote (or stand for election) you need to be Israeli.

[ecoli]

That is not really true. It is true that there is no restriction within the Israeli population, but Israel restricts who is allowed to call themselves Israeli very much along racial/religious lines, and in order to vote (or stand for election) you need to be Israeli.

 

Sorry, but I think you've got some false information there.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Acquisition%20of%20Israeli%20Nationality

Israel's Nationality Law relates to anyone wishing to settle in Israel, as well as those already residing or born there, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex or political beliefs

[Aardvark]

Israel restricts who is allowed to call themselves Israeli very much along racial/religious lines, and in order to vote (or stand for election) you need to be Israeli.

 

There are lots of Arab Muslims in Israel who have full citizenship and civil rights.

 

There are lots of Arab Muslims who stand for election and get elected.

[Severian]

Sorry, but I think you've got some false information there.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Acquisition%20of%20Israeli%20Nationality

 

You should really read the pages that you quote from. The rules on the immigration are roughly the same as every other country except for:

 

The Law of Return (1950) grants every Jew, wherever he or she may be, the right to come to Israel as an oleh (a Jew immigrating to Israel) and become an Israeli citizen.

 

I see no such right for muslims.

[Aardvark]

I see no such right for muslims.

 

 

That does not alter the fact that there are lots of Muslims in Isral who are full Israeli citizens with full civil rights, including forming political parties and being elected to the Knesset.

[Severian]

That does not alter the fact that there are lots of Muslims in Isral who are full Israeli citizens with full civil rights, including forming political parties and being elected to the Knesset.

 

Sure - I accept that. But it still seems pretty racist to me that a certain racial group is given preference to citizenship. Since only citizens can vote and apply for office, it provides a rather skewed system.

 

Can you imagine the furor which would erupt if the US had special rules for whites applying for citizenship.

[Aardvark]

Sure - I accept that. But it still seems pretty racist to me that a certain racial group is given preference to citizenship.

 

About as racist as Japan limiting citizenship to people of Japanese origin. Is Japan a racist state? It seems perfectly reasonable that a Jewish state should give preference in migration to Jewish people.

 

Since only citizens can vote and apply for office, it provides a rather skewed system.

 

Considering the large number of Arab Israeli citizens i fail to see how it is skewed?

 

Can you imagine the furor which would erupt if the US had special rules for whites applying for citizenship.

 

False analogy. It would be similiar if the USA has special rules for people applying for citizenship who already have some particular link to the USA such as family relations.

 

All nations exist for the benefit of their people, Iceland for the benefit of Icelanders, Japan to look for the interests of the Japanese and the USA for US citizens and their kith and kin. By definition all nations are exclusionary, that does not make them racist.

[Severian]

About as racist as Japan limiting citizenship to people of Japanese origin. Is Japan a racist state? It seems perfectly reasonable that a Jewish state should give preference in migration to Jewish people.

 

Yes, it is racist if it limits citizenship to those who are racially Japanese rather than those who have some claim to Japanese citizenship through ancestry. (Does Japan really do this? I don't think it does.) Note that these are not the same thing. So an ethnically 'white' person born in the US may have a case for Japanese citizenship if their grandfather had Japanese citizenship, but someone who is racially 'japanese' but has no relation who is/was a Japanese citizen would not have such a case.

 

The Israeli case is different. They racially prefer Jews to someone non-Jewish even if neither have any relational claim to being Israeli. That is racist.

 

False analogy. It would be similiar if the USA has special rules for people applying for citizenship who already have some particular link to the USA such as family relations.

 

No - you have the false analogy. The Law of Return makes no specification of family relation to anyone who is an Israeli citizen. It is entirely based on race.

 

The only slightly redeeming feature of the law is that they accept people who convert to Judaism:

 

For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion.

 

But I suspect they have very stringent (ie. practically impossible to pass) tests to ensure this.

[Aardvark]

Yes, it is racist if it limits citizenship to those who are racially Japanese rather than those who have some claim to Japanese citizenship through ancestry. (Does Japan really do this? I don't think it does.)

 

Yes, Japan does that. People who are racially of Japanese origin have an automatic claim on citizenship on the theory that Japan is the home of the Japanese people.

 

 

 

The Israeli case is different. They racially prefer Jews to someone non-Jewish even if neither have any relational claim to being Israeli. That is racist.

 

Actually, it is more a matter of religion and culture. Jewish Negroes from Africa are as entitled to, and receive, citizenship and the robust protection of the Israeli state, as more 'traditionally' racially Jewish Jews. Their is no bar or impediment on the basis of race.

 

 

 

No - you have the false analogy. The Law of Return makes no specification of family relation to anyone who is an Israeli citizen. It is entirely based on race.

 

Not so, the law of return is based on a persons relationship to the Jewish religion and culture. Black, brown, yellow or white, Jews from all corners of the world and of all races are accepted into Israel under that law.

 

The only slightly redeeming feature of the law is that they accept people who convert to Judaism:

 

But I suspect they have very stringent (ie. practically impossible to pass) tests to ensure this.

 

Negroes from Africa, Asiatics from the highlands of Burma and whites from Europe all have passed the tests. It is a test of sharing a common culture not of race.

[Sisyphus]

The point is that the exception is made for people who have no connection with Israel whatsoever beyond being Jewish. That pretty firmly establishes Israel as a Jewish state, doesn't it? How is that discriminatory? How could it not be offensive to non-Jewish Israelis?

[Aardvark]

The point is that the exception is made for people who have no connection with Israel whatsoever beyond being Jewish. That pretty firmly establishes Israel as a Jewish state, doesn't it? How is that discriminatory? How could it not be offensive to non-Jewish Israelis?

 

All nations are basd on some common ties of identity, in the case of Israeli, ones of common Jewish culture. Unless you accept that all nations are offensive by the act of their very existence then there is nothing offensive about Israel.

[Pangloss]

Sure, but "Jew" != "Israli", until the Israeli government says so. Severian and Sisyphus have a point.

[ecoli]

Sure, but "Jew" != "Israli", until the Israeli government says so. Severian and Sisyphus have a point.

 

They also keep harping on one point about racism. I would like to point out that Judiasm is not a racial characteristic, it is a religion. Jews come from all over the world and have members of all races. That being said, "The Law of Return" cannot be said to be racist.

 

Second, the Law of Return certainly encourages Jews to live in Israel, but no law restricts immigration based on other religious criteria, race or creed.

 

Yes, Japan does that. People who are racially of Japanese origin have an automatic claim on citizenship on the theory that Japan is the home of the Japanese people.

Yet, Japan does have other races living among them just like Israel. I would guess that Israel is more diverse then Japan, but Israel is a nation of immigrants so that is to be expected.

 

Jewish Negroes from Africa are as entitled to, and receive, citizenship and the robust protection of the Israeli state, as more 'traditionally' racially Jewish Jews. Their is no bar or impediment on the basis of race.

These Jews are mostly from Ethiopia. And there are Israeli Jews from India and China as well, albeit in smaller numbers.

 

Sure, but "Jew" != "Israli", until the Israeli government says so. Severian and Sisyphus have a point.

 

To present both sides, American Jews can hold dual citizenship with Israel and thus are allowed to vote in Israeli elections.

[Sisyphus]

They also keep harping on one point about racism. I would like to point out that Judiasm is not a racial characteristic, it is a religion. Jews come from all over the world and have members of all races. That being said, "The Law of Return" cannot be said to be racist.

 

I never said it was racist. But in any case, is there really a fundamental difference between discriminating based on race or on religion?

 

Second, the Law of Return certainly encourages Jews to live in Israel, but no law restricts immigration based on other religious criteria, race or creed.

 

True. And Jews don't get palaces, and non-Jews aren't hunted down and killed. But it's still inequality under the law.

 

To present both sides, American Jews can hold dual citizenship with Israel and thus are allowed to vote in Israeli elections.

 

Yes, exactly! I couldn't do that, because I'm not Jewish. Unless I'm mistaken, it wouldn't even matter if my parents had been non-Jewish immigrants from Israel. Yet a Jew who hasn't had a direct ancestor living in Israel for a thousand years would get those rights.

[ecoli]

I never said it was racist. But in any case, is there really a fundamental difference between discriminating based on race or on religion?

Oops, that was Severian, not you. Sorry. There is a slight difference in the fact that you can become Jewish, but you could never become Caucasian.

 

True. And Jews don't get palaces, and non-Jews aren't hunted down and killed. But it's still inequality under the law.

There's no denying that. It is still a Jewish homeland, however. It's goal is indeed to protect Jews and not to discriminate against non-Jews.

 

Yes, exactly! I couldn't do that, because I'm not Jewish. Unless I'm mistaken, it wouldn't even matter if my parents had been non-Jewish immigrants from Israel. Yet a Jew who hasn't had a direct ancestor living in Israel for a thousand years would get those rights.

Or a convert whose ancestors had never stepped foot anyway near Israel.

Yes, that is true. And is something many native Israeli's have a beef with. I mean, would you want somebody who has never lived in your country be able to vote on your politics? I wouldn't. I, personally, would never vote in an Israeli election unless I lived there.

[abskebabs]

Yes, exactly! I couldn't do that, because I'm not Jewish. Unless I'm mistaken, it wouldn't even matter if my parents had been non-Jewish immigrants from Israel. Yet a Jew who hasn't had a direct ancestor living in Israel for a thousand years would get those rights.

I think its interesting you say this because if this law/rule was extended to nonjews who's ancestry goes back to israel, then every Palestinian would be able to immigrate become an Israeli citizen:D . Perhaps if such a law was passed, we could be well on our way to a single state solution(As insane and dangerously idealistic as that may sound), and perhaps this would be a major turning point.

[DaveC426913]

It occurs to me that if Israel had been founded not as a "Jewish state" but as a purely secular state that happened to give refuge to Jews (and anyone else, I guess),

And how would the Jews have felt about that? Wasn't the whole point to give them a place they can call their own?

[Sisyphus]

And how would the Jews have felt about that? Wasn't the whole point to give them a place they can call their own?

 

Yes, that was the whole point, and I'm suggesting it was a mistake. The more relevant question is how did the non-Jews living there feel about giving the Jews "a place to call their own." I would have been pretty damn angry, myself. As for how Jews would have felt if that didn't happen, well, why would they be upset? I don't understand your question.

[ecoli]

Yes, that was the whole point, and I'm suggesting it was a mistake. The more relevant question is how did the non-Jews living there feel about giving the Jews "a place to call their own." I would have been pretty damn angry, myself.

 

It's hard to say because it's not like everyone would have the same experiance. Some would have had a positive experiance because the foundation of Israel brought a lot of employment oppurtunities to the region that wasn't previously available. So in that sense, it was good.

 

 

And, since most of the non-Jews living there now would have been born after Israel was established, they are probably used to living in a Jewish state. As a Jew living amoung mostly Christians, I have to 'conform' to a christian calander of doing things. It's annoying, but I deal with it.

 

To a greater extent, I expect this is what non-Jews in Israel deal with.

[mooeypoo]

Actually, it WASN'T created as a religious state, but rather national.

 

The fight to define what is a jew is extensive, and exists until today. While it's true Israel has religion and state non-seperated, it's funny to see some of its approaches much more "advanced" than other western-world countries (like america, how ironic), such as the treatment to gays (gays in the military were allowed a lot before the American military allowed gays, and privileges to partners of the same-sex are pretty advanced in israel, ironically so).

 

In any case, while the basis for the state of Israel involved religion, it was FAR from being religious. In fact, religious folk are trying endlessly to change the state of israel to fit their own views. Ultra-religious deny its existance.

 

Zionism, in fact, is concidered to be "anti religious". And the star of david is also not religious, it is symbol of zionism (you will not see any religious people walk with a star of david. It is not like the Cross..)

 

I do agree, though, that Israel is based on religion, but that is because Judaism is a definition that carries religion, history and tradition within it, and not so much because of the actual religious affiliation of the country. The religious rules are meant to "respect" religious people, not to adhere to their faith completely.

 

As for what would've happened if Israel was declared secular in advance, well, I have no idea. I don't think it would've been any different though, simply because the definition of "Jewish" is so controversial (even within judaism), and so changing, that there probably couldn't be a "Jewish" state that is completely and utterly far away from religious notions.

 

This, btw, is not a discussion that is limited to this forum. Israel citizen are debating and fighting (seculars for secularism, and religious for religion) over the definition and therefore the conduct and "atmosphere" behind Israel's code of rules.

 

~moo

[mooeypoo]

Oh, another thing -- non jews in Israel (such as Israeli Arabs) have different set of rules (don't have to go by the religious rules) for their faith. That is embedded in the Israeli basis of rules.

 

So yes, Israel is not seperating "religion and state" officially, but is quite tolerant (at least 'legally') to the versatility of its citizen, both jews and non jews.

 

~moo

[ecoli]

That's basically what I was trying to say, Mooey. Of course you have more experiance than me about this. Well said.

[mooeypoo]

I try

 

I might be more 'versed' in the rules, but this, I guess, is quite subjective. While a lot of Arab Israelis claim (and sometimes justly, admittedly) that the state can do a LOT more to be tolerate to them, most of them agree that any other arab country treats its citizens a LOT worse, and are a lot less tolerant (even to their own nation).

 

Again, though: No country is perfect. These are however hard questions to answer... I am not sure if this is even a question we CAN answer, concidering it has a looooooooooooooooooot of variables behind it.. history, traditions, the region, the wars, the people, the government, the mentality, the wills and desires of factions within the state etc.

 

It's a subject being discussed a lot in Israel, amongst the Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Christians and many other smaller groups that live there..

 

 

~moo